US Politics/Biden Presidency (Trump-free zone)

[Chach]

8 hours ago, Ghoat said:

Primarily the "progressives" (using quotes because that's what the wing is basically called not in a mocking tone or such) that are advocating the New Green Deal, Medicare

I find it really surprising these are still considered progressive or left wing policies in any western liberal democracy.

With regards to the green new deal and carbon pollution, why is that not a conservative priority? 

[Chach]

Why is this not viewed as a failure of the GOP when other western countries can deliver universal healthcare at half the cost?

[Ghoat]

3 hours ago, Chach said:

I find it really surprising these are still considered progressive or left wing policies in any western liberal democracy.

With regards to the green new deal and carbon pollution, why is that not a conservative priority? 

I really think you are getting too tangled up in definitions. I have no idea why this group is labeled, or labeled themselves "progressive" but that's the case here, regardless of what the term means to you. Like "authorization left", I still have no idea what policies are embodied in that, but it's clear to you. Obviously they have different connotations.

Simply put "liberals" put more faith in government than private sector/individuals to provide solutions for the needs of it's citizens. "Conservatives" the opposite. That's about it. Both are required, but the how much/little government is "best" is the battleground, inter and intra-party.

Therein lies you answer about conservatives and the Green New Deal. Regardless of how important carbon reduction itself may be to conservatives, for the GND to be implemented and actually work as intended in the USA, it would require a significant expansion of federal powers, government personnel, regulations and money. Which, by definition, makes conservatives leery at best.

[Ghoat]

4 hours ago, Chach said:

Why is this not viewed as a failure of the GOP when other western countries can deliver universal healthcare at half the cost?

This is in year 4 after The Affordable Care Act/Obama Care passed. Seeing how it got 1 GOP vote in the House, and not a single GOP Senator voted for it, perhaps that would be a better question for the Democrats?

If you know how we can deliver universal care at half the cost, we'd all love to know, I assure you. 

[Chach]

6 minutes ago, Ghoat said:

I really think you are getting too tangled up in definitions. I have no idea why this group is labeled, or labeled themselves "progressive" but that's the case here, regardless of what the term means to you. Like "authorization left", I still have no idea what policies are embodied in that, but it's clear to you. Obviously they have different connotations.

Simply put "liberals" put more faith in government than private sector/individuals to provide solutions for the needs of it's citizens. "Conservatives" the opposite. That's about it. Both are required, but the how much/little government is "best" is the battleground, inter and intra-party.

Therein lies you answer about conservatives and the Green New Deal. Regardless of how important carbon reduction itself may be to conservatives, for the GND to be implemented and actually work as intended in the USA, it would require a significant expansion of federal powers, government personnel, regulations and money. Which, by definition, makes conservatives leery at best.

I think think the definitions are fairly clear, the authoritarian (right or left) part just implies those people want to enforce those ideas on everyone.

The squad are primarily focused on social justice and environmental matters and they are pretty authoritarian about it. In Australia those types are all in the Greens, or as I like to refer to them far left, over educated, inner city, latte drinking Tree Tories.

I don't believe that the idea that conservatives are worried about expansion of government stands up to scrutiny, the market based solutions are already there.

Step 1. Make carbon expensive, everyone else has to pay to have their garbage dealt with. Why should carbon be treated any different just because it floats.

Step 2. Provide cheap finance to fund private clean energy projects.

Step 3 Ban political contributions from organisations who have a vested interest in carbon pollution.

  

[Chach]

37 minutes ago, Ghoat said:

This is in year 4 after The Affordable Care Act/Obama Care passed. Seeing how it got 1 GOP vote in the House, and not a single GOP Senator voted for it, perhaps that would be a better question for the Democrats?

If you know how we can deliver universal care at half the cost, we'd all love to know, I assure you. 

I cannot believe you would try and attribute that to Obamacare without some basic googling, What happened in the 80's and 2000's? Who was making the legislation during those periods.

 

We have mostly single payer in Australia, I pay 2.5% of my gross income in a Medicare levy. Because I earn over a certain amount I am incentivised to also have have private insurance (or I have to pay an additional 1%)  I claim on the private mostly for things like dental work (not covered by medicare) and my kids glasses/contacts.

You will see from the graph ours is half the price of yours, that's how you do it. Its being done all over the world. it's amazing, just don't insert a profit motive.

 

 

[Ghoat]

7 hours ago, Chach said:

 

Step 1. Make carbon expensive, everyone else has to pay to have their garbage dealt with. Why should carbon be treated any different just because it floats.

Step 2. Provide cheap finance to fund private clean energy projects.

Step 3 Ban political contributions from organisations who have a vested interest in carbon pollution.

  

 

Those steps seem basic enough, with the exception of the 3rd. Our legal system expressly forbids discriminating against (domestic) parties from petitioning the government.

Everything isn't black and white when it comes to practical applications. It would be much simpler to wave a wand and make the happen in Australia. Almost 90% of your power comes from fossil fuels. You have something like 25 million people, but over half are in 5-6 cities along the east cost. You could slap 20 nuclear power plants in a 500 or so mile cluster and have power for 13-15 million people - literally solved over half your power grid with zero carbon footprint from power.

Far more complicated in the US. There are 40 million-ish people on our east cost going from Virginia up, 3-4 times as many as your east coast example above. There are 50 million on our west coast. 20 million in Florida. 30 million in Texas. If you extrapolated the same data, it would take two HUNDRED plants to power that grid. And that leaves 180-200 million people scattered across about 40 other states to convert. 

You have a very small population over a huge area. The UK, or Germany, has a large population in a small area. We have a huge population over a huge area - that is an entirely different kettle of fish, even if we have significantly more resources available. Sure we (the US) have 7X the GDP of the UK with 5-6X the population but in an area FOURTY times larger. I really don't think a lot of people truly understand just how frigging big the populated area of this country is - it's about the same area as the entire continent of Europe.

I think the goal is worthy, and difficult or not, we need to make progress towards carbon reduction. If Australia can successful overhaul it's entire power grid, transportation system and transform the economy to meet the basic NGD tenants to be "carbon neutral" by 2030 or even 2040, that is fantastic. But it is absolutely anise to expect what worked in Australia to work just the same in the US or the UK, it's apples and oranges. Feel free to look it up, but there are many on the US left that love the idea, but don't believe it's practical, or even doable. 

 

For the record, I used nuclear plants in the example because they produce the most non-fossil power, at an average of about 1 gigawatt (700,000 people) each, and it kept the math easier. Not because I think we need to build massive numbers of nuclear reactors in the next 20-30 years   

 

 

 

[Ghoat]

9 hours ago, Chach said:

 

The squad are primarily focused on social justice and environmental matters and they are pretty authoritarian about it. In Australia those types are all in the Greens, or as I like to refer to them far left, over educated, inner city, latte drinking Tree Tories.

I don't believe that the idea that conservatives are worried about expansion of government stands up to scrutiny, the market based solutions are already there.

 

  

Haha, that made me laugh 

 

Out of curiously, how do you define "conservative" as it relates to party, policies etc. Generally speaking that is, not trying to box you into a narrow definition, but to understand your context when you use the term

[Chach]

On 29/08/2019 at 01:32, Ghoat said:

Haha, that made me laugh 

Out of curiously, how do you define "conservative" as it relates to party, policies etc. Generally speaking that is, not trying to box you into a narrow definition, but to understand your context when you use the term

if you had asked me this a few years ago I would have probably said that conservatives were just small minded people with no imagination or capacity for logic and an unhealthy obsession with money what is going on in other peoples bedrooms.

Trump and Brexit has separated the conservatives from the reactionaries though, and now I'm still I'm still trying to work it all out.

 

[Ghoat]

11 hours ago, Chach said:

if you had asked me this a few years ago I would have probably said that conservatives were just small minded people with no imagination or capacity for logic and an unhealthy obsession with money what is going on in other peoples bedrooms.

Trump and Brexit has separated the conservatives from the reactionaries though, and now I'm still I'm still trying to work it all out.

 

Fair enough. The older I get the less and less tolerant I get to the religious conservatives - the Christian Right. While I am a Believer and have a faith, it's personal - I don't want mine or anyone else's to drive policy. 

One of the candidates running for mayor here in Montgomery, who I really kinda liked, ran a TV spot that opened with "The Bible tells us..." there went my vote. If I wanted to know what the Bible told me, I'd read it myself or listen in the church hall, not City Hall. Stay in your lane, dipshit.

Needless to say the Religious Right has a disproportionately unhealthy influence in my part of the world.

[Chach]

le sigh.

[markjazzbassist]

Hahah

[Palfy]

On 30/08/2019 at 17:47, Ghoat said:

Fair enough. The older I get the less and less tolerant I get to the religious conservatives - the Christian Right. While I am a Believer and have a faith, it's personal - I don't want mine or anyone else's to drive policy. 

One of the candidates running for mayor here in Montgomery, who I really kinda liked, ran a TV spot that opened with "The Bible tells us..." there went my vote. If I wanted to know what the Bible told me, I'd read it myself or listen in the church hall, not City Hall. Stay in your lane, dipshit.

Needless to say the Religious Right has a disproportionately unhealthy influence in my part of the world.

Isn’t religion like a business in some areas of the USA, with some Pastors being like celebrities with TV shows and a huge following. 

The candidate running for Mayor is he really preaching or just electioneering for votes, by trying to connect with the people who have a big share of the vote.

[Cornish Steve]

Hi The situation regarding Trump’s announcement that the recent hurricane was going to ravage Alabama has gone from the weird to the absurd. 

The president presented a map on national television on which he’d used a felt tip pen to amateurishly and wrongly imply the hurricane would hit Alabama. To calm residents, the weather agency in Birmingham Alabama came out with a factual statement: Don’t worry. It won’t come here. It’s too far east.

Then, it turns out, Trump told one of his cabinet to get the forecasters to agree with him. Wilbur Ross called NOAA, the government forecasting agency, to tell them that heads would roll unless they condemned anyone who disagreed with the president. As a result, NOAA put out an announcement claiming the Birmingham forecasters were wrong, even though the hurricane’s actual path proved they were factually correct.

What happens next? My guess is that weather forecasters in Birmingham will lose their jobs for daring to tell the truth about the weather. If that happens, scientists involved in weather forecasting will speak out, because (in my experience as a science researcher) scientists are obsessed with getting the facts right.

Breaking news: the FAA has just announced that Boeing 737 radar will, at the president’s request, be enhanced to detect pigs that may be flying by. 

[Palfy]

7 hours ago, Cornish Steve said:

Hi The situation regarding Trump’s announcement that the recent hurricane was going to ravage Alabama has gone from the weird to the absurd. 

The president presented a map on national television on which he’d used a felt tip pen to amateurishly and wrongly imply the hurricane would hit Alabama. To calm residents, the weather agency in Birmingham Alabama came out with a factual statement: Don’t worry. It won’t come here. It’s too far east.

Then, it turns out, Trump told one of his cabinet to get the forecasters to agree with him. Wilbur Ross called NOAA, the government forecasting agency, to tell them that heads would roll unless they condemned anyone who disagreed with the president. As a result, NOAA put out an announcement claiming the Birmingham forecasters were wrong, even though the hurricane’s actual path proved they were factually correct.

What happens next? My guess is that weather forecasters in Birmingham will lose their jobs for daring to tell the truth about the weather. If that happens, scientists involved in weather forecasting will speak out, because (in my experience as a science researcher) scientists are obsessed with getting the facts right.

Breaking news: the FAA has just announced that Boeing 737 radar will, at the president’s request, be enhanced to detect pigs that may be flying by. 

Is this story for real if so I’m completely lost for words. 

[Ghoat]

16 hours ago, Palfy said:

Isn’t religion like a business in some areas of the USA, with some Pastors being like celebrities with TV shows and a huge following. 

The candidate running for Mayor is he really preaching or just electioneering for votes, by trying to connect with the people who have a big share of the vote.

Yes that is certainly true some areas, and certainly some areas of the Southeastern US. Generally speaking I think he was just trying to endear himself to the Christian right which is certainly a sizable voting bloc. 

It was almost a certainty that we would have a runoff (one candidate must have had 50+ percent to avoid). There were 4-5 I could have seen in the runoff. Unfortunately, it the two I was least hoping for.

We have the white guy, David Woods, who owns one of the local network TV affiliates, but really did not seem to have a great plan - besides telling us what the Bible says. To be fair the only used one example in one ad that was one too many for my tastes. And he has the charisma and excitement of uncooked white rice.

Then we have our probate judge, Steven Reed, who actually I like. He is a good speaker very intelligent and his platform wasn't bad. However, his Daddy Joe Reed is class-a fucktard. He has been in Alabama politics for over 30 years - with Montgomery being the state capital. He equates everything to the Civil Rights movements of the 60s, and anytime he doesn't get his way or platform it's strictly due to racism, even within his own party. Everyone is a racist but him. Heck my father in law started a soup kitchen in a small poor Catholic Church in a predominantly black neighborhood when did run it for years on donations volunteers and help from the nuns in the local parish. Joe Reed found out about it six or seven years after it has been going and wanted to come down and help and donate money and rename the whole thing to the Joe Reed Soup Kitchen, and when my father-in-law welcomed the help but not the political side, he pulled out citing that he could not work with a racist... There are hundreds of stories like that, he is just that guy.

I really don't want a white guy as our mayor, I think Montgomery needs a black mayor and I voted accordingly. Not to mention I do not think the white guy was a good candidate. As much as I like Steven Reed, I do not want his dad anywhere near City Hall bring his politics into it it scares the hell out of me.

It's a non-partisan election, there was no mention of Republican or Democrat no mudslinging tying one candidate two the left or to the right of national politics none of that. but after the election when it was a term in there would be a runoff Kamala Harris very oddly came out in support of Steven Reed for governor. I really wish she wouldn't have. Why the senator from CA running for the Democratic nomination for president endorsed him, I have no clue - that is not something she normally does. 

So now I fear the runoff will be black-white republican-democrat. I have absolutely no idea which of these two I would rather have run the city, it's not a good choice. I believe Steven Reed will win however. Neither have any direct political experience really, but one of them is going to be mayor of 200,000 of us. And frankly the mayor of the town that you live in has a hell of a lot more effect on your daily quality of life than your state senator, the minority or majority leaders or who is sitting in the Oval Office.

[Ghoat]

If Trump had just nuked the damn thing before it hit the Bahama's, it would be a moot point!

[Cornish Steve]

3 hours ago, Palfy said:

Is this story for real if so I’m completely lost for words. 

It's totally real - or maybe surreal. Can you imagine a president drawing like a child and using it on television? Or claiming a hurricane on the East Coast will hit Alabama full on when forecasters said not? Or demanding that forecasters agree with him rather than present the obvious truth? It's totally absurd. This is one of many recent incidents that reveal he really must be seriously ill, because there's simply no other explanation.

https://www.newsweek.com/commerce-secretary-wilbur-ross-threatened-noaa-employees-hurricane-dorian-alabama-trump-1458391

[Cornish Steve]

16 minutes ago, Ghoat said:

If Trump had just nuked the damn thing before it hit the Bahama's, it would be a moot point!

This may be lost on readers if they're not aware of what's behind your comment.

The president apparently told top scientists they should stop hurricanes from reaching the US coast by dropping nuclear bombs on them.

Another recent gem is that he told supporters that a hurricane is nothing but a very big tornado.

[markjazzbassist]

1 hour ago, Cornish Steve said:

It's totally real - or maybe surreal. Can you imagine a president drawing like a child and using it on television? Or claiming a hurricane on the East Coast will hit Alabama full on when forecasters said not? Or demanding that forecasters agree with him rather than present the obvious truth? It's totally absurd. This is one of many recent incidents that reveal he really must be seriously ill, because there's simply no other explanation.

https://www.newsweek.com/commerce-secretary-wilbur-ross-threatened-noaa-employees-hurricane-dorian-alabama-trump-1458391

he's not ill he just always has to be right.  he can't be seen to be wrong, and even if he is, then he is one of those people that will never admit it and will lie or twist the truth to get out of it.  honestly it's just sad, he's so scared to be wrong and fearful of not being Mr.Awesome and it really is sad. what is the opposite of humility?

[Palfy]

3 hours ago, markjazzbassist said:

he's not ill he just always has to be right.  he can't be seen to be wrong, and even if he is, then he is one of those people that will never admit it and will lie or twist the truth to get out of it.  honestly it's just sad, he's so scared to be wrong and fearful of not being Mr.Awesome and it really is sad. what is the opposite of humility?

Donald Trump 

[Matt]

7 hours ago, Cornish Steve said:

It's totally real - or maybe surreal. Can you imagine a president drawing like a child and using it on television? Or claiming a hurricane on the East Coast will hit Alabama full on when forecasters said not? Or demanding that forecasters agree with him rather than present the obvious truth? It's totally absurd. This is one of many recent incidents that reveal he really must be seriously ill, because there's simply no other explanation.

https://www.newsweek.com/commerce-secretary-wilbur-ross-threatened-noaa-employees-hurricane-dorian-alabama-trump-1458391

To be honest, I’m just surprised he knew where Alabama was on a map

[Ghoat]

6 hours ago, Matt said:

To be honest, I’m just surprised he knew where Alabama was on a map

To be fair, we move around a lot.

https://www.newsweek.com/cnn-mistake-alabama-label-mississippi-hurricane-dorian-path-donald-trump-brian-stelter-1457438

[Ghoat]

14 hours ago, Cornish Steve said:

This may be lost on readers if they're not aware of what's behind your comment.

The president apparently told top scientists they should stop hurricanes from reaching the US coast by dropping nuclear bombs on them.

Another recent gem is that he told supporters that a hurricane is nothing but a very big tornado.

He isn't the first to suggest/ponder that, it's been kicked around since the 60's. There is chance it could be effective if done early enough while forming - but probably not. Then there's the risk of creating a larger radioactive hurricane. Kinda like launching ICBM's at meteors, and having a shit ton of radioactive fragments falling through the atmosphere.

 

That was a year ago with Michael. And to be fair most every state gets tornadoes and more people can relate to the power and damage of a tornado, whereas only a comparatively small number have had the misfortune to truly understand a hurricane - so in that regard it is not the worst analogy to paint a picture. Scientifically it's totally wrong, it's apples and oranges - but as we know that's not something that has ever been a barrier to a sound bite or a tweet from The Donald!

[Ghoat]

On 27/08/2019 at 22:14, Chach said:

I find it really surprising these are still considered progressive or left wing policies in any western liberal democracy.

 

@Chach that statement stuck in my craw a good bit. It struck me as very arrogant "elitist-type" comment. My knee-jerk was to say something vapid like

 we've been a democracy a hell of a lot longer than you, so what do you know, or some other stupidity, but I resisted (barely lol). But I kept coming back to that statement, and wondering why the hell that was so weird to you and why your response was so baffling to me.  @Sibdaneand @markjazzbassist I tend to differ with on a fair amount of stuff, but I get them, even when they are clearly wrong  Most of the Europeans, and you specifically (due to more interaction in the last few pages) I simple don't "get" at all. I figured it was more about definitions and perspectives more than anything. I think that's largely true, but the "how" our governments got to where we are, broadly speaking, is a bigger disconnect than perhaps I realized. It's easy as American to look at UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and assume we're basically the same people. We were all Brits or British colonies, we speak the same language, look similar, all are democracies, have been allies or supported each other in almost every military conflict since WW1. Seemingly similar values, y'all basically think like us/we think like y'all whichever. Ish....

I have confessed ignorance on the British system government. It's not something we are taught in school, much beyond the US Colonial period and whatever is mentioned in World History classes. The history or civics of it has to be something you specifically seek to learn or understand. Labor, Tory, democratic socialist parties, coalition governments, no-confidence votes, suspending parliament,  Commons, Lords even the term "liberal democracies" are all just odd nebulous terms to most Americans, because the really don't exist in America political lexicon. 

I do love history, and have studied (as an adult, not as a student) it quite a bit, especially Russian, "Balkan" WW1/WW2 and more recently 19th century and inter-war Europe - but have little attention span for the nuts and bolts of how/why the respective governments worked, or didn't work. Go figure, it was Peaky Fucking Blinders that sparked my interest between the two, especially the relationships between government, workers, labor, socialists, communists. I have read a fair amount on the Russian Civil War between the Reds and the White, and frankly it's confusing as hell between all the factions and the Slavic names. But being exposed (dramatic fiction or not) to the impact from a perspective of 1920's England's society, economy and politics piqued my interest in the whole socialist movement and rise of the Labor party.

As a result a bit of the gaps between "A and D" have been at least partially filled in, and I have learned a lot. I still keep up with the "Brexit" and "General Election" threads, even though I don't understand most of the nuances or references, but it's starting to make more sense. Basically I'm just less ignorant, but far from being able to add anything of value. And before one of you jokers wacks the low-hanging fruit, I'm going to beat you to it - So, how is that different from any other thread?

[Chach]

5 hours ago, Ghoat said:

@Chach that statement stuck in my craw a good bit. It struck me as very arrogant "elitist-type" comment. 

 

Psychologists refer to this feeling as "cognitive dissonance"

[Ghoat]

Here's the gist. Personally I had no knowledge that the Labour Party originated directly from the union labor workforce, had no idea that the socialist movement was as big in the UK as it was, ditto the labor unions themselves. The fact these became political allies years ago, and eventually the base of the Labour Party, makes sense. That this occured as the UK was in transition from a monarchy to a democracy is profound to me. If my basic grasp is correct, labor and various social democracy groups were the voice of opposition against those who controlled power in the UK. The ones that presided over a tumultuous 50 years that included a recession, a devastating war, a deep depression followed by an even more devastating war that left the entire continent exhausted and battered. 

 

But you have to realize, Great Depression aside, America experienced none of that. In part because the direction we took - a democracy with a capitalist economy that was generally isolationist and focused internally. But far more due to timing and luck. We were a minnow in world affairs and nobody much gave damn about us. European countries and economies were matured, and fighting - literally at times -  for natural resources and influence across the globe. We were the opposite. We had literally more land and natural resources than we knew what do with - in no small part because the world powers bailed on North America, either just leaving or selling us land to focus thier resources elsewhere. Our biggest problem was we didn't have enough people. 

There was a ton of domestic and international turmoil in Europe in the period at the end of the US Civil War in the 1860's to 1914, but we were in an expansionist boom almost that whole period. We were trying to build railroads and infrastructure to populate the Pacific Coast and we had domestic access to virtually all the raw material - except people. We were begging for people all over the world to move here. There was work, no shortage of food, hell we would give you 40 acres of land if you would move to our underpopulation areas and plant a farm. 

We stayed out of both World Wars as long as possible focused on domestic growth. And when we did move to wartime footing in both cases the economy and industry grew exponentially during and after the war, "The Roaring Twenties" and "The Baby Boomers" generation saw us become the richest and most powerful nation in the world at the time. Again, that's more fortuitous circumstances than "Good Ole America". The belligerents in World War I all had a significant part of entire generations of young men die. And even more returned home physically or mentally damaged to the workforce in shattered economies. We lost a very small portion of that generation, and they returned to a boom economy. 30 years later another European generation faced the same fate, with even more dead, and this time they returned home to over a million dead civilians, and bombed cities. We had greater losses, but proportionately far less than others. Our soldiers returned to an economy that had transformed and was in hyper growth. We had damaged airfield and port in Hawaii that was repaired by 1942. The Japanese launched something like 10,000 balloon bombs, think total of five or six people were killed somewhere in Oregon. The wars simply weren't fought in our yard, they were in someone else's. Ours were untouched while others were wrecked.

The social changes that occured in Europe over those 50-75 years that eventually toppled the government of all European powers, twice in some cases, didn't occur in America. Our population, society and nation changed dramatically during that time - and it wasn't without growing pains or perfect by any means.  But we were well over a hundred years into democracy, with almost no changes to the original Constitution. We had massive changes to the country due to growth, but the government "evolved" and grew with it. We were fortunate to have decades of mostly uninterrupted peaceful exponential growth - economically and as a youthful nation finding it's identity. That's a stark contrast to was occuring in the hearts and minds of European citizens and those whole ruled them.

Socialism and/or Communism never came to the America as a movement or into the body politic in the 20th Century. Maybe it wasn't "exported" because it's adherents wanted to change THEIR country, and stayed to do so. Maybe for the Europeans who chose to immigrate, America was the "change" they wanted and accept it as it was. Many initially settled in enclaves while they found work, learned the language or generally assimilated themselves into American society, even "Americanizing" thier first or last names in many cases - that whole "Melting Pot" thing. Then they gradually scattered across the country, bringing bits and pieces of their language and culture with them. Except the Irish. I swear they all joined the police force, fire department, built pubs and never left Boston....But there was no massive social-political movement or upheaval that radically reshaped the nation or redirected the the direction of our government.

 

Throughout the 20th century in the US the terms Socialism or Socialist have generally been met with disinterest at best, and outright hostility at worse. Since it never really appeared here as a movement, it was "introduced" in 1939 by Adolph and Benito, and ergo is analagous with Totalitarianism. Almost every conflict, or near conflict the US has been involved with has been with a socialist government. Those of us who are older have grown up hearing hearing the revolutionaries or socialist leaders talk about bringing revolution, destroying democracy and capitalism and we are almost always the example. We have been doing this democracy and capitalism thing for a couple hundred years now. And while it's not perfect, it's all we have even known, it's got us to this point and we kinda like it. 

For a lot of Americans the first things that spring to mind aren't Canadian Health care, Einstein, Bernie, our own Social Security or policies of many of our close allies. It conjures up failed oppressive dictatorships, or hostile regimes personified by thier leaders. Socialism is Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Castro, Mao, the Kim Jungs, Mussolini, Che Guvera, Ho Chi Min etc...

Not saying that's even remotely correct or fair, and there is no doubt that is beginning to change, especially among 35 and below crowd. But as general rule, in the American political arena, the distinction between socialist policies and a full on anti-capitalist socialist regime isn't always made.

 

Please understand, yes, I'm an American and I love American. But I don't think we're superior, have some divine gift, always get it right, and are inherently "better" because of the latitude we were born in. We have just had the good fortune of timing, resources, some luck, and geopolitical events beyond our control. Not to mention we got all the fruits, but skipped a thousand years of development, and got the benefit on some of the best and brightest from around the world that made incalculable contributions to this country. Not better/worse but our path has been unique, our perspective is little different, still evolving and Bob's your uncle.

 

[Palfy]

42 minutes ago, Ghoat said:

Here's the gist. Personally I had no knowledge that the Labour Party originated directly from the union labor workforce, had no idea that the socialist movement was as big in the UK as it was, ditto the labor unions themselves. The fact these became political allies years ago, and eventually the base of the Labour Party, makes sense. That this occured as the UK was in transition from a monarchy to a democracy is profound to me. If my basic grasp is correct, labor and various social democracy groups were the voice of opposition against those who controlled power in the UK. The ones that presided over a tumultuous 50 years that included a recession, a devastating war, a deep depression followed by an even more devastating war that left the entire continent exhausted and battered. 

 

But you have to realize, Great Depression aside, America experienced none of that. In part because the direction we took - a democracy with a capitalist economy that was generally isolationist and focused internally. But far more due to timing and luck. We were a minnow in world affairs and nobody much gave damn about us. European countries and economies were matured, and fighting - literally at times -  for natural resources and influence across the globe. We were the opposite. We had literally more land and natural resources than we knew what do with - in no small part because the world powers bailed on North America, either just leaving or selling us land to focus thier resources elsewhere. Our biggest problem was we didn't have enough people. 

There was a ton of domestic and international turmoil in Europe in the period at the end of the US Civil War in the 1860's to 1914, but we were in an expansionist boom almost that whole period. We were trying to build railroads and infrastructure to populate the Pacific Coast and we had domestic access to virtually all the raw material - except people. We were begging for people all over the world to move here. There was work, no shortage of food, hell we would give you 40 acres of land if you would move to our underpopulation areas and plant a farm. 

We stayed out of both World Wars as long as possible focused on domestic growth. And when we did move to wartime footing in both cases the economy and industry grew exponentially during and after the war, "The Roaring Twenties" and "The Baby Boomers" generation saw us become the richest and most powerful nation in the world at the time. Again, that's more fortuitous circumstances than "Good Ole America". The belligerents in World War I all had a significant part of entire generations of young men die. And even more returned home physically or mentally damaged to the workforce in shattered economies. We lost a very small portion of that generation, and they returned to a boom economy. 30 years later another European generation faced the same fate, with even more dead, and this time they returned home to over a million dead civilians, and bombed cities. We had greater losses, but proportionately far less than others. Our soldiers returned to an economy that had transformed and was in hyper growth. We had damaged airfield and port in Hawaii that was repaired by 1942. The Japanese launched something like 10,000 balloon bombs, think total of five or six people were killed somewhere in Oregon. The wars simply weren't fought in our yard, they were in someone else's. Ours were untouched while others were wrecked.

The social changes that occured in Europe over those 50-75 years that eventually toppled the government of all European powers, twice in some cases, didn't occur in America. Our population, society and nation changed dramatically during that time - and it wasn't without growing pains or perfect by any means.  But we were well over a hundred years into democracy, with almost no changes to the original Constitution. We had massive changes to the country due to growth, but the government "evolved" and grew with it. We were fortunate to have decades of mostly uninterrupted peaceful exponential growth - economically and as a youthful nation finding it's identity. That's a stark contrast to was occuring in the hearts and minds of European citizens and those whole ruled them.

Socialism and/or Communism never came to the America as a movement or into the body politic in the 20th Century. Maybe it wasn't "exported" because it's adherents wanted to change THEIR country, and stayed to do so. Maybe for the Europeans who chose to immigrate, America was the "change" they wanted and accept it as it was. Many initially settled in enclaves while they found work, learned the language or generally assimilated themselves into American society, even "Americanizing" thier first or last names in many cases - that whole "Melting Pot" thing. Then they gradually scattered across the country, bringing bits and pieces of their language and culture with them. Except the Irish. I swear they all joined the police force, fire department, built pubs and never left Boston....But there was no massive social-political movement or upheaval that radically reshaped the nation or redirected the the direction of our government.

 

Throughout the 20th century in the US the terms Socialism or Socialist have generally been met with disinterest at best, and outright hostility at worse. Since it never really appeared here as a movement, it was "introduced" in 1939 by Adolph and Benito, and ergo is analagous with Totalitarianism. Almost every conflict, or near conflict the US has been involved with has been with a socialist government. Those of us who are older have grown up hearing hearing the revolutionaries or socialist leaders talk about bringing revolution, destroying democracy and capitalism and we are almost always the example. We have been doing this democracy and capitalism thing for a couple hundred years now. And while it's not perfect, it's all we have even known, it's got us to this point and we kinda like it. 

For a lot of Americans the first things that spring to mind aren't Canadian Health care, Einstein, Bernie, our own Social Security or policies of many of our close allies. It conjures up failed oppressive dictatorships, or hostile regimes personified by thier leaders. Socialism is Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Castro, Mao, the Kim Jungs, Mussolini, Che Guvera, Ho Chi Min etc...

Not saying that's even remotely correct or fair, and there is no doubt that is beginning to change, especially among 35 and below crowd. But as general rule, in the American political arena, the distinction between socialist policies and a full on anti-capitalist socialist regime isn't always made.

 

Please understand, yes, I'm an American and I love American. But I don't think we're superior, have some divine gift, always get it right, and are inherently "better" because of the latitude we were born in. We have just had the good fortune of timing, resources, some luck, and geopolitical events beyond our control. Not to mention we got all the fruits, but skipped a thousand years of development, and got the benefit on some of the best and brightest from around the world that made incalculable contributions to this country. Not better/worse but our path has been unique, our perspective is little different, still evolving and Bob's your uncle.

 

What the fuck you going on about Billy Bob you been drinking to much moonshine  or what

[Chach]

I have a horrible feeling Ghoat thinks America invented democracy and capitalism.

@Ghoat, please advise.

[Ghoat]

The point of all that was that you were shocked that "The Squad" are considered "progressive" or even "liberal" in our political arena. So I did a lot of digging trying to understand why you had that viewpoint that seemed absurd. I'll be damned, but there is pretty good reasons for you to think that. I simply compared the different road taken to arrive at a similar place in time.

And nah, we stole both ideas. Like a hip-hop artist mashing a couple things up. Both Greece and the Adam Smith estate tried to file for copyright infringement, but neither filed the proper paperwork with the EU.